Against all odds, not only had Shaw passed a bill, but he did what was pretty rare, he actually revived and resuscitated legislation from a previous year.

It’s an amazing vindication of the Republican system of government as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

Two years ago, as the day approached for candidates to file for office, a longshot candidate emerged from nowhere, shocking and terrifying the Oklahoma Capitol, politics-as-usual world.

In defeating the powerful appropriations chairman, not only did Lincoln County’s Jim Shaw pull off what might have been the biggest House primary upset in the modern-day history of the House of Representatives, but he sent a powerful message: no establishment, “status-quo” funded candidate is safe from the verdict of the people.

Powerful appropriations chairman Kevin Wallace had followed the special interests template for re-election to the letter.

He had doled out many thousands of dollars in pork to his district, and he had played the insider game for years, working himself into and becoming the long-term holder of what is likely the 2nd most powerful position in the 101-member state House.

But Shaw represented the 180-degree contrast to Wallace. He wasn’t a politician, he wasn’t from the fake political world that offers little in actual value to society; he was instead a regular citizen, a self-made business success from the real world.

To the great credit of the voters of House District 32, who turned out in large numbers to support Shaw in the 2024 runoff election, they saw through the big grift played by the politicians, touting conservatism but delivering bigger and bigger government, few having done more than Wallace to grow the size of state government spending, and they weren’t bought off by the wasteful pork, even if it was to the benefit of certain personalities in their district.

To those in the Capitol world, this was the type of earth-shattering warning not unlike how the early republican movements terrified the monarchs of late 18th and 19th century Europe. A republican uprising in one nation was sure to inspire free-minded peoples in the nation next door, and the spread of freedom could flash over in an instant.

If the citizens’ revolution to retake the House of the People, as designed by our nation and state founders—the House of Representatives, currently dominated by the institutionalists and an elite political class since 2019—were to spread, then no one was safe. If Wallace could be defeated, even as he spent hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars, likely a record amount for a primary election cycle, then no one in that institution was immune from a similar potential defeat.

As Shaw, accepting his role as emissary of the people to state government, made his way into the establishment’s sacred ground, the Capitol, the forces of the political old guard, the establishment, had a choice to make.

They could do what was right for the voter, accept the will of the people, act wisely, and welcome Shaw into the House, recognizing the fact that his business acumen was the ultimate benefit to them, to return to conservatism and bring about efficiencies and wise spending in a state government that’s rife with inefficiency and corruption, as one will immediately realize by reviewing the state auditor’s audits and the reports of the Legislature’s LOFT office, having accumulated out of control in the era of government spending on steroids as overseen by Wallace and the other institutionalists in the House since 2019.

Or they could act unwisely and do as they did: place Shaw in ice, discriminating against him and the voters of his district, making it clear that Shaw, by virtue of his status as the emissary of the people, was not, in fact, a member of the political elite, and thus didn’t have the same standing as the other representatives.

They chose the latter path and embarked upon a strategy that was clearly predicated on:

Refusing to acknowledge Shaw’s existence, or mere presence within their ranks;

Biding their time, waiting for the grassroots forces to lose energy and focus, as many grassroots efforts do, hopefully allowing those grassroots to start infighting and turning on themselves instead of focusing their energies on the political class; and

Bringing about episode two of the prologue: the empire strikes back, finding a tool to run against Shaw and to reclaim what was theirs—the House District 32 seat—thus assigning the grassroots revolution of 2024 to a mere blip in the history of the state, a very notable but nonetheless temporary uprising of the common man.

Indeed, as House Speaker Kyle Hilbert’s very select number of House chairmen, bolstered by their defeat of State Rep. Tom Gann’s effort to ensure that every representative should have the right to get a vote on their bills, aka The Gann Plan, set about to discriminate against Shaw, squashing his bills at every turn, a leading member of Speaker Kyle Hilbert’s team reportedly took to the caucus floor to encourage the Republican caucus, dominated by members of the special interests and political elite, that, in fact, the grassroots movement was just “10 people on Facebook.“

Wise representatives saw through this bluff. The advent of free and open social media platforms, especially X, continues to demonstrate a nascent but fast-growing state-focused grassroots movement, the potential of which has only begun to manifest.

It’s a movement that those of us in the first generation of Republican leadership could foresee as we built the policies of Transparency 2.0 and pushed out the means, methods, and tools by which the ensuing generations could hold the government accountable. This missing piece—free and open social media—is the last piece to this puzzle and the grassroots effort to retake the state government for the people is just getting started.

One can’t help but get the sense that today’s legislative establishment leaders are not unlike the Soviets of the early 1980s: antiquated, without the mandate of the popular will, desperate to hold on to power, solely by means of having inherited power, and frightened, very frightened.

So for legislative leadership, set about on the unwise strategy of putting Shaw in ice, they had a challenge.

Which committee chairmen would be willing to take the fall for bottling up Shaw, the outsider whose portfolio of legislative initiatives were as consistent with popular thought as they were offensive to the special interests whose money funded the establishment?

This was a tricky chore. For you see, as a rule, leadership protects its freshmen. Viewed as the most politically vulnerable, these freshmen often struggle to pass legislation in their first year—a highly overrated achievement but one of importance in the artificial world of the Capitol where most mistakenly view the passage of legislation as necessary in order for legislative advancement and being able to tout the legislator’s prowess as he seeks re-election.

It’s a skewed view. For the most part, the people of Oklahoma don’t want more legislation, as they have the wisdom to know that most legislation simply means more laws, the size and scope of which are already far beyond anything envisioned in a government of intelligent design.

But it’s a fascination point of the Capitol world, so leadership, as they pawn and cultivate the next generation of politicians, often make it a point to ensure that each legislative freshman gets at least one bill heard on the House floor.

So when it was time to put Shaw in ice, in the view of this writer, those conniving in the back rooms clearly set about to punish him the best way they could: by ensuring he wouldn’t get a single bill out of committee, in clear contrast to how they treated the other freshmen.

It’s the great irony that perfectly demonstrates the upside-down nature of the Capitol world: while countless bills advanced that violated conservative and constitutional values and principles, or made no sense, or maybe were even admittedly not ready for passage, it was one of the most professional members of the House, with an amazing portfolio of real-world success, that wasn’t allowed to get a hearing on a single bill, even though those bills were in line with the principle of that office holder’s campaign, delivering on his promises, as he achieved what might have been the greatest political upset in primary election history.

So as most House freshmen, including Democrats, received hearings in committee, Shaw’s did not.

Throughout 2025, those chairpersons held firm.

With two exceptions, leadership had assigned Shaw’s bills to committees where it appeared that the chairman could easily take the fall. These chairmen were long ago in the tank for the special interests, and they were well positioned to absorb the populist hit that would come their way for discriminating against Shaw and his good ideas.

But there was one very obvious exception, a legislator who clearly made the decision to play the leadership game, but who represents an electorate that not only is widely opposed to that game, but which has the capability of sponsoring and supporting a viable challenger.

That chairman was House District 31 State Representative Collin Duel, who, not only has the misfortune of residing in an extremely grassroots-centric constituency, one of the best in the state, but who, in a move that would lead an insightful observer to question if he was purposefully being sabotaged by leadership elements, was assigned a Shaw proposal that was absolutely impossible to oppose: making it clear that foreign entities shouldn’t be allowed to buy up Oklahoma farmland.

Duel had a tight needle to thread. It’s clear, from this writer’s point of view, that Duel couldn’t afford to be the chairman who let Shaw crack out of the ice. To do so would clearly be viewed as weakness by leadership.

But remember, Duel is sitting on a powder keg of grassroots energy, one of the best districts in the state and a district that resides right next to Shaw’s, where the two representatives both stake a part in the best county in the state, Logan County, a county where the people have been known to insist that their leaders turn down lobbyist largesse, of which Duel eagerly scoops up, and home to The Sooner Sentinel, published by two-term Logan County Commissioner Marven Goodman, an individual who had the natural curiosity to write a story about Duel’s actions, and who wasn’t afraid to contact Duel to ask, “Why didn’t you hear Jim Shaw’s bill?”

Duel, clearly grasping at straws, pointed Goodman to a couple of points of concern, both of which a clearly thinking observer could easily assess for what, in the view of this writer, they were: fig-leaf cover points designed to deflect from the real reason for Duel’s refusal to hear the bill. He simply couldn’t lose face with leadership, so he had to join in with the mob in trying to push out the emissary of the people, even at electoral risk to himself.

And if the reader of Goodman’s description of Duel’s explanation had any doubt as to Duel’s real intent, they simply needed to look at the portfolio of other bills Duel advanced, including those of Democrats, to quickly realize that Duel was gaslighting.

While Duel couldn’t be bothered to give Shaw’s prohibition of foreign ownership a hearing, he was hearing, voting for, and advancing legislation such as that by liberal Democrat Ellen Pogemiller, placing a massive fee increase on those who seek to pursue justice via small claims court. It enacts a staggering 88% increase—from $45 to $85—and would spike court revenues by $2.2 million. Notwithstanding Duel and his committee’s support, the fee increase was one of the few to actually meet defeat on the House floor, being, yes, too big of a power grab on the people for even the institutionalist-dominated House to co-sign, going down in a vote of 39-50, but still providing just one example of numerous government-expanding pieces of legislation Duel green-lit and supported.

But then a funny thing happened.

Election year rolled around. And the ice, well, the ice started to thaw.

Normally, when a bill isn’t heard in the first half of a legislative session, it’s dead forever.

But word started to get out: Duel’s 2022 opposition, a candidate who had been on the receiving end of the most heinous dark-money attacks in the history of that district, and who, notwithstanding, had still almost defeated Duel, even though he possessed just about every institutionalist advantage, including the best consultants and the support of the government class, was courageously challenging Duel again.

When Duel won his election in 2022, he had no voting record. When the dark money attacked his opponent on an unprecedented scale, he was able to stay on the sidelines and stay clean.

Now, however, he has four years of values-betraying votes, allowing the voters to know exactly why it was that the special interests spent so much dark money to get him elected.

Just one example of Duel’s biggest missteps? In 2024, as the pro-life community pleaded with legislators to allow the people of Oklahoma to have a vote on breaking up the red-state, blue-judiciary dynamic—an anti-republican policy that allows unelected, liberal attorneys an outsized influence on nominating liberal judges to rule over conservative Oklahomans—Duel had a decision to make: he could side with the pro-life advocates and allow the people of Oklahoma to vote on ending this abuse, or he could side with his occupational associates who want to retain this anti-republican power, and Duel, an attorney, chose the latter path.

Now, under challenge from a courageous challenger—one who presents a clear contrast to Duel by virtue of the fact that she has taken the no-lobbyist-money pledge—and faced with the prospect of being exposed for ignoring the pleas of the pro-lifers and keeping those blue-haired, abortion-embracing entrenched leftists on the bench, ruling over conservative-minded Oklahoman, amongst numerous other missteps, in the view of this writer, Duel simply can’t take on the added risk of being exposed for bottling up Shaw’s proposal to prevent foreign ownership.

Thus, on Thursday, something very remarkable happened: On the very last day before the deadline, Shaw’s proposal, though shelved for a year, not only made a sudden return to committee but became Shaw’s first proposal to win committee approval and advance.

Not only had Shaw passed a bill, but he did what was pretty rare, he actually revived and resuscitated legislation from a previous year.

It’s an amazing vindication of the Republican system of government as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

Though, in this writer’s view, the most powerful forces in Oklahoma had conspired to put Shaw in ice, he, with the disciplined team effort of the grassroots who believe as he does—one of whom is directly challenging the committee chairman—clearly changed the equation. For all of the time and effort spent putting Shaw in ice, it was to no effect. He simply couldn’t be stopped.

For Shaw, this is likely just the first of many future legislative successes, as now that he has broken out of the ice, his tale

February 19: When the Ice Finally Cracked in the Oklahoma House
Click the title to read the full report at Jason Murphey Blog




February 23, 2026 at 10:55AM - Rooke

A few days ago, newly minted State Superintendent of Education candidate Toni Hasenbeck took to the august halls of the vaunted Oklahoma Conservative PAC, where she boldly and unambiguously declared that by entering the race, she became the only “conservative” seeking that office.

Now, those who have paid the scantest attention to Hasenbeck’s legislative tenure would, of course, know the absurdity of this claim: Hasenbeck is not, in fact, a conservative policymaker.

Her lifetime score from the gold standard of Oklahoma indices since 1979, the Conservative Index, sits at a mere 62. Her score from the just-released Oklahoma Grassroots Index, an in-depth analysis of her votes, as contextualized through the Oklahoma Republican Party platform, shows her voting in accordance with Republican principles just 33% of the time. And the first-ever People’s Audit from The Oklahoma State Capital, grading the 93 worst votes of the 2025 session, in terms of our nation’s foundational principles of traditional American populism, as described by de Tocqueville, shows that out of 93 bad votes, she cast the correct vote, in line with the values of the people, just five times.

In short, she’s gaslighting.

And to see how she would govern as Education Superintendent, we need only look to 2023, when House leaders Charles McCall and Jon Echols green-lit SB 36X, handcuffing then-Superintendent Ryan Walters to the budget of his Democratic predecessor, Joy Hofmeister. Hasenbeck was all on board, voting for the proposal not just on the floor but in committee as well.

Consider for a moment the absurdity: a conservative, Republican superintendent was forcefully required by policy to continue the programs of his Democratic predecessor, specifically in the context of federal funds and federal grant requirements of a Department of Education run under Joe Biden’s U.S. Department of Education.

In short, the legislators, including Hasenbeck, were doing whatever they could to take away the duly elected Walters’ ability to run and reform that agency, to reduce and eliminate wasteful spending and to implement his vision for transforming public education in Oklahoma. Walters, dogged every step of the way by institutional-minded politicians, including Hasenbeck, had little more than one half of one term in office before the institutionalists reclaimed the agency.

Anyone who believes that Hasenbeck is anything other than Hofmeister 2.0 — well, you know the saying: there’s a bridge in Arizona awaiting your purchase.

Now, in this regard — gaslighting the grassroots without the slightest trace of shame — Hasenbeck is hardly alone. In recent weeks, Republican grassroots meetings have been flooded with politicians who have spent years perfecting the art of telling audiences exactly what they want to hear. And for the next few months, their chosen audience is the most vulnerable of all: good-hearted conservatives searching for someone — anyone — to step forward and defend the values that made our nation great. They want to believe. And it’s that desire that is precisely what makes them so very susceptible.

Until recently, that gaslighting was the domain of Charles McCall and Jon Echols, the two statewide candidates who did so much to destroy the culture of conservatism, deliberation, reform, and transparency in the Oklahoma House, but now they are being joined in the tour of grassroots organization circles by a host of their minions — those who, with their votes, enabled the dark curtain of opaqueness and concentrated power, stitch by stitch, to condescend over the Capitol.

But it gets worse: one might believe that at the very least, during this legislative year, we should have the most conservative House ever, because so many House members are running for state office. Sure, they have betrayed our values time and again in the past — but now that they are actually running, claiming the mantle of “conservatism,” they can’t keep betraying us with their voting in the Legislature, at least not during the campaign… right?

Nope. These politicians really do seem to believe that not only can they gaslight us about their past votes, but can continue to do so, even while playing the “I am the conservative in the race” game.

Hasenbeck provides us with Exhibit A.

No sooner had Hasenbeck made her bold claim at OCPAC than she returned to the Capitol world and did what Capitol-world people do: betray conservative values.

In her role as chair of the House Committee on Higher Education — and as so many House chairmen are killing conservative legislation — Hasenbeck green-lit and gave her support to a woke proposal by liberal Democrat Trish Ranson of Stillwater.

That proposal?

It appears to be one of the woke objectives — a mandate on higher-ed institutions and part of a nationwide effort to prevent state universities from determining if their student applicants are, in fact, criminals.

Known as the Fair Chance Admissions effort, Ranson’s House Bill 3379 prohibits the common-sense public safety practice of determining if your college-age student will be sitting next to an axe murderer. And, of course, when the axe murderer does what axe murderers do, the victim will likely have limited recourse to seek civil justice, as the institution that enabled the crime will have the protection of law, having been forced by mandate of law to remain blind to the obvious danger, when deciding if they should in act, admit an ax murder to their campus. And though, after admission, the school might take certain measures to mitigate the danger, Ranson’s mandate places the school on the hook for that cost, so it’s certainly likely that the school will not have the incentive to create a special learning environment for the axe murderer whom they were forced to blindly admit.

It’s the latest demonstration of how the woke worldview is so far removed from common-sense basic observations of human nature, and it’s been supported, advanced, and remains alive and well courtesy of Hasenbeck and her committee in a “conservative” legislature, in the reddest state in the union.

It’s certainly not the first time Hasenbeck has sided with the criminal element. In what was one of last session’s most important votes, Hasenbeck voted to stop the State Board of Education in its effort to determine the impact of the illegal alien invasion on state-funded schools. The board’s request was simple: first and foremost, allow the people of Oklahoma to know just how many illegal aliens are in the system.

It’s a vote that’s taken on new importance as numerous inner-city schools are now in open insurrection, walking out of class and protesting the enforcement of long-settled law: the right of our nation to defend its border from invasion.

But beyond that, the metric serves a far more fundamental purpose: it helps explain Oklahoma’s low test scores and reveals whether metro-area districts are being incentivized to boost enrollment by expanding illegal alien participation in the system — thereby increasing formula funding at the expense of rural districts that primarily serve law-abiding citizens.

Had Hasenbeck appeared at OCPAC and sought support based on her commitment to advancing the interests of the criminal element and the illegal invaders of our nation, then she would at least have the credit of transparency and honesty.

But with her deceptive presentation, she joins the ranks of so many other grifters who have flooded the Republican primary and thrive off toying with the hopes and genuine love of country shared by so many who want to preserve what so many sacrificed to give them.

And that — that is the big grift.

It’s the grift perpetuated by those who don’t think the people are watching them — who believe they can act with impunity no matter their actions, that a day of accountability will never reach them. They act without fear, thriving in the duplicity of a complex process that’s hard to understand and even harder to explain.

These articles, which have regularly decried the deception of the statewide candidates as an illustration allowing the reader to peek through the darkness and get a glimpse of how the system really works, are simply scratching the surface.

One could write each and every day on the time and time again when the politicians who currently campaign for statewide office have betrayed the values they pompously purport to be the guardians of.

And while these articles do not do that injustice full justice, there is much more to come. Stay tuned.

But until then, know that when that candidate for statewide office shows up at your grassroots meeting touting his conservatism, or when your legislative incumbent seeks re-election, flooding your mailbox and Facebook with his declaration of conservative policy, know that nine times out of ten, you are being gaslit — and to embrace this candidate is to put your name and reputation on the line advancing the big grift, contrary to all of your hopes and beliefs and your honest desire to preserve our shared values and beliefs for the next generation.

One more note: Hasenbeck was right about one thing. As of this moment, there is only one conservative in the race for Oklahoma State Superintendent of Education — and his name is James Taylor. He will take the OCPAC stage on Wednesday the 18th at noon. I will also be in attendance and I look forward to addressing attendees and informing them about this work, The Oklahoma State Capital project, enabled by your support.

Gaslighting the Grassroots
Click the title to read the full report at Jason Murphey Blog




February 17, 2026 at 09:56AM - Rooke

The following bonus article for this week contains publisher Jason Murphey’s observations of the role alcohol played in the Oklahoma House of Representatives, expanding on his observations from the week’s regular article, as a thank you to the paying subscribers of The Oklahoma State Capital.

In the past few days, in response to State Senator Shane Jett’s efforts to get the Capitol’s alcohol abuse problem under control, certain gaslighting legislators have greatly disrespected the electorate by pretending there isn’t an alcohol problem.

Alcohol fuels that place. It is one of the more sinister methods by which policymakers are manipulated and has been that way forever. The question isn’t whether it’s a problem—it always has been, dating back to territorial days. The real question is whether the problem has metastasized in recent years to the point that it is consuming a growing number of policymakers, instead of being isolated to a subset of those with particularly bad judgment.

I believe it is. Legislative leaders themselves demonstrate it. Charles McCall openly flaunts the rules against alcohol by going so far as to manufacture his own brand and distribute it within the Capitol building, where the rules expressly forbid alcohol. Julie Daniels, the Majority Floor Leader in the Senate, stands on the chamber floor and jokes—without embarrassment and in full public view—about bringing alcohol onto the Senate floor itself.

Or as that Bible verse in Jeremiah says, “Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? Nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush.” The lack of caution—or embarrassment—is itself an indicator of the extent of the problem.

Those who would gaslight the public by pretending it isn’t happening are doing a special disservice to the people they are supposed to represent.

Do not mistake this for performative humor. If legislators are willing to joke about it in public, others are far more candid in private. These are the ones who talk about “having to go back to the office to get refreshed,” or who carry the unmistakable appearance and demeanor of an alcoholic, without any sense that their slowed wit, slurred speech and ruddy complexion are to be hidden.

As mentioned in this week’s article, fellow legislators—and certainly the special interests, who no doubt keep an index file of the foibles of their various targets—are well aware of this.

That article questioned the sobriety of Senator Casey Murdock by presenting video from the Senate floor on the final day of session. If Murdock was intoxicated, he certainly presented as an angry alcoholic—slowly pacing, menacing even, and speaking about “cutting the throat” of other senators.

Back in my day in the House of Representatives, our foremost resident alcoholic was a happy alcoholic. In fact, it was often preferable to deal with him when he was clearly intoxicated than when he was not. To some, this made the behavior seem harmless—until one day, likely under too much influence, he began bragging about things he was not supposed to be telling, to the wrong people. That had repercussions.

Let’s just say there are two systems of justice in Oklahoma: one for the politically connected, and another for those without that protection. If you fall into the latter category, you had better avoid even the perception of doing something underhanded. And you certainly should not trust the resident alcoholic with knowledge of such things.

Those legislators who are known for their drinking are easy marks. They are often sympathetic figures, driven to drink by who knows what personal circumstances or dispositions, and absolutely in the wrong, the absolute worse place to try to stay sober—The Oklahoma State Capitol. Alcohol fuels the lobbyist–legislator relationship, and once a legislator is relieved of the burden of paying for his own drinks, his already thin willpower has little chance of keeping him in a sober state.

It’s a sad deal, but as always, it’s best to deal with sadness, through humor. One of the more humorous examples of how this dynamic plays out behind the scenes came during the speakership of Kris Steele. At the time, the Republican caucus was split into two rival coalitions, evenly balanced in strength. Power moved back and forth between them with regularity, the speakership swinging like a pendulum as each faction took its turn at incredible power.

Steele’s coalition, however, had made a series of strategic missteps. As the session crept toward a major legislative deadline—the most dangerous stretch of the year for any speaker—a small bloc of Republican legislators, led by Randy Terrill, began coordinating with Democrats. Inside the building, the speculation: Steele’s missteps were strengthening Terrill, and at any moment, Terrill could rise on the House floor and move to declare the speakership vacant, abruptly ending Steele’s tenure.

At that time, House members still possessed an essential check on the Speaker’s power: the ability to hold the chair accountable from the floor. That right no longer exists. Today, a member of the House cannot even make a motion without the approval of the Speaker’s Majority Leader—a reality so absurd it stands in direct violation of the most basic principles of parliamentary procedure.

But back to that night. As the day bled into evening and the deadline crept closer, the House settled into its familiar, gossipy posture. In that small world, one question made for an epic parlor game: would Terrill make his move?

For one particular legislator, this presented a dilemma.

That legislator was T.W. Shannon. Shannon had been the foremost beneficiary of the Steele-versus-Terrill fight. As Terrill dragged Steele down, Shannon had become the presumptive leader of the counter-faction, with votes, including that of many of the most-conservative house members, lining up for him to be the next speaker after Steele termed out.

Read more

The Capitol After Hours: They No Longer Know How to Blush
Click the title to read the full report at Jason Murphey Blog




February 11, 2026 at 06:02PM - Rooke

And don’t think any half-observant legislator doesn’t see this, no matter how much they deflect. All they have to do to see it, is to look across the table and the wine-consuming gluttony of their colleagues. Alcohol plays an incredibly integrated role in every aspect of the legislative process, a time when that individual is far removed from the real world, courted by the most powerful forces in the state, and very vulnerable to influence.

It was the end of the 2025 session, and the corpulent, old-guard, decadent leaders of the institution known as the Oklahoma State Senate had a problem: one of their own had thrown aside the controlling constraints of chamber-based tribalism, normally used to keep the members silent about the excesses of the institution, and had spoken directly and truthfully, describing the recently concluding multi-hour arm-twisting session for what it was: clear corruption.

The Senator, Shane Jett’s courage was clearly bringing the heat, and as she took to the microphone, the Senate floor leader said the quiet part out loud, expressing for all to hear her wish that the rules could be suspended to allow for “adult beverages” to be brought to the floor.

Though she will no doubt assert that this was, in fact, tongue in cheek, floor leader Julie Daniels should be familiar with the quote “many a word spoken in jest contains a bitter substratum of truth.”

It was in bad judgment for Daniels to make that comment, because as experienced legislators will know: alcohol is the fuel that keeps the legislature running.

It’s so commonly available, and the societal pretenses against its abuse have been so shredded, that comments like Daniels’s, at the time, aren’t even eyebrow-raising to those who live in that world. For them, it was perfectly normal for the floor leader to take to the microphone, for the world to see, and joke about her desire to bring alcohol onto the Senate floor.

Likewise, as outgoing House Speaker Charles McCall sought to forever cement his legacy as “Speaker Maximus,” it was natural for him to ply his devoted followers, and fellow House members, with “Speaker Maximus: ‘Strong House’ brand whisky,” creating quite a dilemma for the conscientious state employees who staff the legislative offices on the morning when they opened up the office to discover that the alcohol fairy had dropped off a special present, a clear violation of standards that specify alcohol is not to be in the Capitol building.

The mergence of alcohol and policy has been in issue, dating back to statehood, but when legislators are openly mocking the prohibition on alcohol in the capitol, especially high ranking officials, such as McCall and Daniels, then the public is right to suspect that the problem is spiraling out of control, and their lawmakers are likely being influenced and are making decision while in a state of inebriation.

In recent days, as State Senator Shane Jett has courageously sought to memorialize into statute that no alcohol should be used in that building, he’s faced, in this writer’s view, ill-advised retaliation by Senate leadership. Jett is over the target, and it’s a target that anyone who’s paying attention in that building sees for themselves.

But that hasn’t stopped the gaslighting defenders of the corrupt status quo from obfuscation and deflection. Here’s their favorite: “I have never seen alcohol on the floor of the chamber since I have been here.”

This is, of course, a complete deflection. Lazy though they may be, legislators still have the stamina and willpower to make it back to their office, if their effort is to be awarded by whatever sits in that mini-fridge, safely tucked away behind a covering layer of waters, sodas, and other camouflaging materials.

But of course, as with all things in the “welfare mindset” world of the legislature, legislators don’t like to pick up the tab for their own alcohol. That’s the job of the special interests, the lobbyists who represent the entities that are cashing out on the greatest republic in the history of the world, ensuring their special benefit by plying the decision-makers into submission.

Likely case in point: State Senator Casey Murdock.

Murdock is a man known for his appetite. He’s infamous for topping the lobbyist gift list, meaning he has a particular knack for managing to be in the room when the lobbyists are buying things.

Take, for example, May 28th, 2025, one day before the close of session, a day when no doubt the citizens are under the mistaken belief that their legislators are “working.”

On this day, if lobbyist filed reports are to be taken at face values, Murdock reportedly had “drinks” at the prestigious Citizens House on Robinson with three “liaisons”, aka government-paid lobbyists, from the Attorney General’s office—yes, for some reason Oklahoma Attorney General Drummond seems to need three lobbyists—and another senator. Murdock successfully outpaced the others, racking up $40 on the lobbyist bill. Two of the AG’s lobbyists gave Murdock a little bit of a run for his money by charging $32. Yes, this is your state government: expensive (the salaries of Drummond’s flock of “liaisons” are pricey, were they on the clock at the time?), wasteful, not serious, and likely, in the personal view of this writer, assuming the lobbyist reporting is accurate, and there was alcohol in those expensive “drinks,” not entirely sober.

We don’t know what time this occurred, but we know that it wasn’t dinner, because another lobbyist had that tab: $62 for Murdock’s dinner. Here, Murdock managed to finish in third place in the game of running up the lobbyist’s tab, out of a group of about 15 legislators. How much of that was alcohol? There’s no way to know, because they don’t itemize, but Murdock did manage to significantly outpace many of the attendees in terms of total tab.

But unless one of the lobbyists “misremembered” the date of their expense, Murdock wasn’t done. A third very high-powered lobbyist, notably making his only reported expenditure for the entire month of May, reported treating Murdock to another $30 of “beverages,” a much more sophisticated manner of reporting than the term “drinks.”

So by the 29th, the last day of session, if Murdock seemed a bit discombobulated—as was commonly observed by those watching his bizarre conduct that day, literally taking to the Senate floor and talking about “cutting” people—presuming the drinking affair of the day before was indeed alcoholic, perhaps it wasn’t that Murdock was intoxicated; it may have been that he was simply hungover.

Murdock’s appetites make him an extremely vulnerable target for everyone from special interests to other legislators.

Here’s just one hypothetical example: let’s say that, hypothetically speaking, Murdock is causing trouble in the Senate. Maybe he’s threatening to switch his vote on one of those endless roll calls where the pro tem is keeping the vote open. That pro tem knows that Murdock has a propensity for appetite, so what to do? Call in a favor from an influencer, of course. “Hey, why don’t you go see if you can get Murdock to bite on drinks or fancy food while we get this vote handled?”

Now, that’s all hypothetical, but it shows the wisdom of that verse in Proverbs, in which the state’s truly powerful behind-the-scenes special interests and Senate power brokers are contextualized as rulers: “When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee: and put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite. Be not desirous of his dainties: for they are deceitful meat.”

By accepting the excesses of the Capitol lifestyle, Murdock has made himself a target. His appetite is the potential key to manipulating him—that is, he’s got a weakness, a weakness he may try to cover with great knife-threatening bravado, but a weakness nonetheless.

And don’t think any half-observant legislator doesn’t see this, no matter how much they deflect. All they have to do to see it, is to look across the table and the wine-consuming gluttony of their colleagues. Alcohol plays an incredibly integrated role in every aspect of the legislative process, a time when that individual is far removed from the real world, courted by the most powerful forces in the state, and very vulnerable to influence.

It’s one of the reasons why this writer almost always refuses to spend time or resources supporting those who are seeking office. Until they are willing to draw a line, abstain from even the appearance of impropriety, and refuse all special-interest largesse, I don’t feel that I am doing them any favors by getting them elected and sending them into that environment.

As for Jett, he owes Senate Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton a thank you. With his pointless retaliation, Paxton has forever cemented Jett’s legacy as being apart from the corruption.

The question now becomes: who will stand with Jett?

Paxton is drawing heavily on Senate tribalism, the dangerous mindset in which one’s loyalty is first and foremost to the institution rather than to the truth. And because Paxton holds such power, few senators will have the courage to speak up. One need only look at the recent method by which Paxton clearly tooled fellow Senator Michael Bergstrom into a forever-haunting misstep—publicly criticizing Jett—to see what this concentration of power does to those who are weak.

This is a leadership opportunity for the conservative coalition led by Senator David Bullard. Will they maintain the corrupt status quo? Or are they committed to proven principles of sobriety, good judgment, abstinence from impropriety, and open and transparent process?

If it’s the latter, then it’s time to stand with Jett. Paxton can’t put them all on ice, and it’s the courage of the bystanders that will make it impossible for Paxton to pick them off in the future, one at a time.

Finally, allow this writer to point to a previous article from last year, “If I Were Running for Lieutenant Governor,” where I argued that, for the first time in 60 years, it is time for the lieutenant governor to earn their pay by doing the one essential duty of the office: presiding over the Senate.

That means no more never-ending arm-twisting open vote sessions, strict enforcement of a two

Is the Oklahoma Legislature Intoxicated or Just Hungover? And Who’s Paying for It?
Click the title to read the full report at Jason Murphey Blog




February 10, 2026 at 06:15PM - Rooke

And soon thereafter, McCall’s very first public policy initiative of significance after becoming House Speaker, House Bill 1845, would bring the state into compliance with federal demands. But unbeknownst to many, McCall’s promise of “protecting the privacy and liberty of our citizens” would become one of the most far-reaching broken promises—and one of the great betrayals of those who worked so hard to get McCall and his Republican majority elected.

The behind-the-scenes story as conservatives seek to confront one of the most tricky betrayals of their “Republican” legislators, and history again points to the courage and sharp instincts of Oklahoma’s most influential House member.

Those who follow freshman state senator Kendal Sacchieri’s Facebook videos are on the cutting edge of the most recent expansion of the surveillance state: footage has leaked (see the X video here) of the state’s new driver’s license data sharing system, no doubt a multi-million dollar implementation funded by your taxpayer dollars, that will go live in the next few days, and that will be used to share your data nationwide with those in other states who you will never be able to hold accountable with your vote, and in complete violation of the principles of state sovereignty and federalism.

Worse, the new system won’t just share the data of those who have opted in to REAL ID, but also the information of those who have intentionally refused to do so, under the mistaken belief that the state would protect them from nationwide data sharing.

The state has come a long way from 2007, when the House, led by then-state representative Charles Key and his Senate Bill 464, passed without a single “no” vote of either party in either the Senate or the House and was signed by Oklahoma’s then-Democrat governor, Brad Henry.

Key’s bill was a strong declaration of states’ rights and of the state’s intent to refuse to comply with the REAL ID mandate. It read in part: “The Legislature finds that the enactment into law by the United States Congress of the federal REAL ID Act of 2005, Public Law Number 109-13, is inimical to the security and well-being of the people of Oklahoma, will cause approximately Eight Million Dollars ($8,000,000.00) in added expense and inconvenience to our state, and was adopted by the United States Congress in violation of the principles of federalism contained in the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

And, “The State of Oklahoma shall not participate in the implementation of the REAL ID Act of 2005.”

This kicked off a multi-year game in which the federal government would promise that it was about to enforce the law … and then extend … and then extend again.

In 2015, Mary Fallin’s Public Safety head, Michael Thompson, said Oklahoma had received an extension from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security until October 2016 that gave it time to comply, but that additional extensions “were unlikely.”

We now know just how silly that threat was. It would be another decade before the federal government started substantively enforcing the law, and the Legislature, to its great credit, ignored him, and the federal government blinked. No enforcement.

But the local media machine, and special interests such as the State Chamber of Commerce, hammered away. A 2015 editorial from The Oklahoman fearmongered about the impending federal mandate. It theorized that, in 2016, every civil worker at Tinker would have to get a passport to get on base—a fear-mongering talking point echoed by the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber in its newsletter.

And it became clear that Oklahoma’s politicians were ready to cave too.

In 2017, new House Speaker Charles McCall and Governor Mary Fallin went all in on the game of pretending to be heroes by getting yet another “extension” from an enforcement action that was clearly a never-ending bluff by the federal government. Had the states stood together and called the bluff, the federal government wouldn’t have been able to enforce its actions. But clearly, cowardly red-state leaders were playing a game over the course of years by pretending that the federal government would act “in just a few weeks” to cut off access to federal buildings and airports.

By 2017, McCall, just as he became Speaker, was declaring:

“I am very pleased that the federal government is giving us additional time to develop a legislative solution to this issue. This extension will allow our citizens to continue to interact with our federal entities without interruption. House Republicans are committed to a solution that will bring Oklahoma into compliance with the Real ID Act while also protecting the privacy and liberty of our citizens.”

McCall’s statements were echoed by his Majority Floor Leader, Jon Echols, who predicted that legislation would quickly pass the bill to bring the state into compliance, stating that he was confident legislators would be “more open to compromise this time.”

Any sense that Democrats would keep their position of opposition to REAL ID was soon dashed as Minority Leader Scott Inman signed on as well. This would be a uniparty initiative, with both parties’ leaders clearly set to cast their lots with the State Chamber and the special interests anxious to bring Oklahoma into compliance with the federal government.

And soon thereafter, McCall’s very first public policy initiative of significance after becoming House Speaker, House Bill 1845, would bring the state into compliance with federal demands. But unbeknownst to many, McCall’s promise of “protecting the privacy and liberty of our citizens” would become one of the most far-reaching broken promises—and one of the great betrayals of those who worked so hard to get McCall and his Republican majority elected.

The size and scope of that betrayal is hard to come to terms with—but it is set to take place in the next few days.

Per Sacchieri’s warning, the state is about to implement a new data-sharing system, sharing access to the data of Oklahoma drivers license holders with other states. But notably, as revealed by Sacchieri, the state does not just intend to share the data of REAL ID-compliant license holders, but also the data of those who opted out.

What gives the state the right to share that data?

It’s McCall’s HB 1845—the very bill that unwound Charlie Key’s SB 464 and brought the state into compliance with REAL ID. That bill not only expressly enabled the data sharing, but, in an ultimate insult, contained a fee increase—an increase that, in my view, likely forced those paying for the non-compliant ID to self-fund the very IT system now set to share their data.

McCall’s bill, HB 1845—the first major policy proposal of his tenure—was brought to the floor and presented on his behalf by then-House Appropriations Chairman Leslie Osborn.

As she presented McCall’s bill, Osborn—clearly acting as an agent of the federal government’s fear-pandering game—resorted to the same fear tactics, noting that the federal government would begin requiring REAL ID as soon as 2018, a prediction we now know was part of a long game to toy with the states until they adopted bills like McCall’s.

Then something notable happened.

A courageous freshman representative asked one of his first questions ever on the House floor—and he went straight to the sensitive part of the matter.

Sure, the bill still allowed those adverse to REAL ID to get a non-compliant driver’s license, but what about the data sharing? Something wasn’t right. Tom Gann had picked up on a suspicious word in the prohibition on data sharing with the federal government.

The bill prevented the sharing of Oklahoma driver’s license data “directly” with the federal government—but what about, Gann wanted to know, indirectly?

Did the bill actually allow the data of non-compliant license holders to be indirectly shared by other means?

Osborn dismissed the freshman’s concerns, stating that “there would be no more sharing than was absolutely vital and required.”

But now, almost a decade later, we now know that Gann—courageously taking to the mic and risking the ire of the new, powerful House Speaker and his Appropriations chair—was hovering right over the target.

Upon close inspection of the bill, McCall was in fact authorizing the state to participate in a third-party, multi-state data-sharing arrangement, with no exclusions or exceptions for those trying to opt out--who were naively believing the state government would protect their information if they took the opt-out option.

Sure, Osborn could say, as she did repeatedly, that the state was not sharing data with the federal government—because that’s not how REAL ID works. The law forces participating states into a third-party network, something Osborn never bothered to explain in response to Gann’s question.

McCall’s trickery, in addition to striking through much of Charlie Key’s 2007 prohibition, read as follows:

“C. The State of Oklahoma shall not share its citizens’ personal information or biometric data with the federal government directly, except as a result of compliance with the REAL ID Act of 2005, Public Law Number 109-13.”

There was no exception for those without a REAL ID driver’s license. Thus, the trickery. Real ID mandates the sharing of access to the data, whether the license holder wants to comply with REAL ID or not. And McCall’s bill, authorized the participating in that network, because that’s the network referenced in REAL ID.

And now, almost a decade later, within just a few days, that is exactly what the government is set to do: provide nationwide access to both REAL ID compliant AND non-REAL ID compliant.

Gann—and to his credit, certain members of the grassroots—were already figuring out the sleight of hand. But it was early in the session, and using the faux logic that “the federal government is about to bar courthouse doors to Oklahomans,” McCall and crew moved at warp speed.

As the tricky McCall would soon boast:

“The Legislature has quickly resolved a matter important for our citizens and our economy. This bill will bring our state into compliance with federal law while protecting the privacy and freedom of our citizens.

Those Oklahomans who are concerned about privacy and liberty will be allowed to opt out and receive a state-compliant ID, but those citizens who need access to federal installations or who desire to travel can receive a federally compliant ID. I have never seen a bill pass both chambers and get signed into law in four weeks, so this is an example of how we can all work together to get a priority for the people of Oklahoma accomplished.”

What can we learn from this?

The arrogance of politicians who believe we have short memories.

We must always remember the gloating McCall, who boasted of the rapid passage of his bill—his first meaningful policy initiative as Speaker.

The same goes for Echols, who now courts the votes of the grassroots for statewide office, but who so viciously betrayed those valu

Happening in Just a Few Days: Your Driver's License Data and Oklahoma’s Quiet Surrender to the Surveillance State
Click the title to read the full report at Jason Murphey Blog




February 4, 2026 at 08:29AM - Rooke